Upload
ramajaya10
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
1/22
Northeastern Political Science Association
Aristotle on Participatory DemocracyAuthor(s): Delba WinthropReviewed work(s):Source: Polity, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Winter, 1978), pp. 151-171Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3234441.Accessed: 16/03/2013 08:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Palgrave Macmillan JournalsandNortheastern Political Science Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Polity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=palhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3234441?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3234441?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
2/22
Aristotle
n
Participatoryemocracy
Delba
Winthrop
University
f
Virginia
The
nature nd role
of
political articipation
ave n
recent
ears
been
the
center
f
discussionwith
eference
o
both
the
American
ystem
f
government
nd the
more
general
oncepts f political
cience.
The
patent ndifference
f
the
Founding
Fathers
f
theAmerican
epublic
to
participatory
emocracy
eems
to have
eft
hem
pen
to the
harge
f
undemocraticendencies.
his article
rgues
that
uch
criticism
gnores
themore
basic
question
f whyparticipatoryemocracy
hould
be
desirable. or a clearerunderstandingftheprinciplesndproblems
involved
heauthor
efers
o
Aristotle's
nalysis
f political
ystems,
examining
is reasons
n
favor
f
democratic
articipation
nd
speculates
as
to how
participation
an be reconciledwith ts unarticulated
remises.
Delba
Winthrop
s assistant
rofessor
f
Government
nd
ForeignAffairs
at the
University
f
Virginia.
he
has
published
rticles n Aristotle
nd
Tocqueville
n
Political
Theory
nd
Publius.
Another rticle s
forth-
coming
n The American olitical cienceReview.
Professor
Winthrop
ispresently orkingn a book on Tocqueville'sDemocracyn America.
When
olitical
cientists
nd
historians
f
political hilosophy
ead
Aris-
totle
oday,
hey
re
understandablyempted
o
speculate
hat
e
might
have
aid
about
political
roblem
ithwhichwe
Americans
re
vitally
concerned:
articipatory
emocracy.
f ourown
houghts
bout
partici-
patory emocracyere lear, tmighte unnecessaryoconsult ris-
totle;
ut
ontemporary
nalysis
ends
o
be,
t
best,
f ittle
elp
o
dem-
ocratic
olitics
nd,
t
worst,
nsufficientor coherent
olitical
cience.
Virtually
ll
political
cientists
oday
dvocate-even
f in
varying
degree
nd
for arious
nds-participation
n
politics
ecause
t s dem-
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
3/22
152
Aristotle
n
Participatory
emocracy
ocratic. All
but
some radicals
gree
that
participatory
emocracy
makes or nefficientovernment,hile hese adicalsanonly ope hat
they
willbe
shown orrect.
onsequently,
itizens'
articipation
ust e
desired
or
ome ther eason han o
secure
fficient
overnment.
ll
do
admit,
owever,
hat
degree
f
participation
s
useful
o
make
govern-
ment
ecure:
To
keep
even an
inefficientnd
imprudent
overnment
functioning
t
may
e
necessary
o
permit
t
eastminimal
articipation.
Most
gree
hat
articipation
s
ustified
n
part
ecause
t satisfiesndi-
viduals
who,
by participating,
an
force
he
ruling
elite
o
meet heir
substantive
emands. ince thesedemands
re
chiefly
conomic,
he
benefitsfmodernechnologyremorewidelyndequally istributed.
At
the same
time,
oyalty
o
the
elite,
hence
tability,
s
purchased.
Finally, any
ontendhat
articipation
tselfs
good
for
he
participants
because
t
brings sychic
atisfaction,
ombating
entalllnesses
uch
s
alienation.
hus,
ontemporaryolitical
cientists
ontend hat
artici-
patory
emocracy
s bad or
qualifiedly
ood
for emocratic
overnments
and
unqualifiedly,
f
vaguely,ood
for
emocratic
itizens.
The
failure f
American
olitical
cientistso
come o
grips
with
he
problem
f
participation
eflects
he
mbivalence
f
he oundersoward
democracy.istoricallyurs sthe irstolityntentionallyonstituteds
a democratic
epublic.
et what heDeclaration
f
ndependencerom-
ises s
to secure ur
ives,
ur
iberty,
nd our
pursuit
f
happiness,
ot
our
right
o
deliberateboutwhether
ur
hildrenhould
e
bused o
an
integrated
chool.Our
government
s
deemed
ust
because
ts ctions
re
consented
o
ratherhan
articipated
n.
According
o
The
Federalist e
have democratic
epublic
ecause
we
have
representative
emocracy.2
Citizens
onsent
very
ew
years
o be
governedy
electing
epresenta-
tives
nda
president;
nd
this,
n
the
udgment
fthe
Founders,
as
the
properxtentf democraticarticipation.emocraticntheorynd n
rhetoric,
ur
government
as to be
a
mix
f
democracy
ith
ristocracy
and
monarchy
n
practice.
1.
A
very
useful
urvey
nd
bibliography
f
the current
olitical
cience
itera-
ture on
democracy
nd
participation
an
be found
n
Dennis
F.
Thompson,
he
Democratic
Citizen
London:
Cambridge
University
ress,
1970),
and Political
Participation,
Perennial
ssue
Paper
forthe
Division f EducationalAffairs
f
the
American olitical
cience
Association
Washington,
.C.,
1977).
Thompson
puts
the iteraturen
perspective
y treating
ot
only
the
acknowledged
oints
f
disagreementmongcontemporaryolitical cientistsnd theorists,utalso the
premises acitly
hared
by
them.
he
central
ssuesof
the current
ispute
re also
reflected n Carole
Pateman,
Participation
nd
Democratic
Theory
London:
Cambridge
niversity
ress,
970).
2.
Alexander
Hamilton,
ames
Madison,
John
Jay,
The
Federalist
apers New
York: New American
ibrary,
961),
No.
10,
pp.
81-88;
No.
63,
p.
387.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
4/22
8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
5/22
154
Aristotle
n
Participatoryemocracy
theticoward
emocracy
han
e
really
as.
Aristotle,
f
course,
ived
n
a democracynd acknowledgedhatdemocracy as themost ikely
regime
or
his
day.
He
judged emocracy
he
east
bad of defective
e-
gimes,
nferioro some are
ypes
nd
superior
o the
ikely
lternatives
of
oligarchy
nd
tyranny.
his
udgment
eflectseither
ntidemocratic
prejudice
or
prodemocratic
ympathy.
n
fact,
ristotle
resentedrgu-
ments
gainst
s
well s
for
democracy.
y
contentions that is
rgu-
mentswere
ormulatedo
show
what coherent
efense
f
democracy
would
ave
o
be. To
be more
pecific,
ear he
enter fBook
In
ofthe
Politics,
e assertshat
certain
ind f
democracy
s
ust,
while ear he
endof that ook he makes he denticalssertionor certainype f
monarchy.
shall
argue
hat his
pparent
ontradictions
merely
o
articulate
he
premises
n which he
ase for
emocracy
ust
roperly
rest,
nd at the ame
time,
o
bring
o
light
he ctual
hortcomings
f
democracy
n terms
f ts
own
premises.
First,
et
us
make learwhatwe
mean
by
democracy,
eginning,
s
does
Aristotle,
y
defining
citizen. o
speak
fcitizens
s
necessarily
o
bring
olitics,
ence
he
problem
f
political
articipation,
o the
fore-
front.
t
the
beginning
f
Book
III,
Aristotleskswhat
citizen
s,
and
an answers suppliedndthenmodified.n thefinal,modifiedorm,
citizens
defined
s
onewho
has
the
ight
power)
o
share
n
the ffice
of
deliberating
nd
udging
ith kill
1257bl8-19).
When
his
inal
definitions
offered,
ristotle
oints
ut
hat
he
nitial
ttempt
t defini-
tion
had
succeeded
nly
n
defining
democratic
itizen.
We,
however,
are
more nterestedn the
nitial
ttempt
or
hat
ery
eason.
According
othat
ttempt,
citizens one
who
participates
n
udging
and
ruling
1257a23).
The
formulaeems o
obvious
s
to
appear
n-
interesting.
e can earnmore
rom
onsidering
hat
he itizens said
not o be.First,his itizensnot made itizen reated y omehu-
man
act,
nor s
he
one
who
chances
o be
a
citizen;
herefore,
e
is
naturally
r
fittingly
citizen.
econd,
e s
a
citizen
ot
merelyy
dwell-
ing someplace,
ike
someonewith he
status
f
a
resident
lien; thus,
sharing
n
thebenefits
f
economic
rosperity
s not he ame s
partici-
pating olitically.
hird,
e
s not citizen
y
virtuef
having
ccess o
thecourts or
he
nforcementf
his
rightsgainst
thers;
ence ven
enjoying
ivil
ights
s
not
he
ame
s
participating
olitically.
ourth,
he
s not
citizenfhe
s
too
young
r
too
old,
ike omeone
ho s
too
youngobedraftednd tovote nd runfor ffice.omeonewho s the
rightge
would
ikely
e
n the
rime
f
manhood,
ence
n
the
ulnessf
his
being.
uch man s a citizen ho
deliberates
n the
ssembly
as
do
our elected
representatives
n
Congress)
and
udges
as
do our
urors
n
duty
nd our
elected
or
appointed udges
in
courts).
Deliberating
nd
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
6/22
Delba
Winthrop
155
judging
n
this
irst
efinition,hen,
re the ctsnot
only
f
citizenship,
but fhumanity.
When
Aristotle
peaks
t
greaterength
bout
democracy,
e
clarifies
the
democrat's
easons or
upposing
hat
very
uman
eing
ught
o
engage
n
politicalctivity:
Now
fundamental
rinciple
f hedemocratic
orm
f onstitution
is
iberty-that
s
what
s
usually
sserted,
mplying
hat
nly
nder
this
onstitutiono
men
participate
n
liberty,
or
hey
ssert
his
as
the
imof
very emocracy.
ut ne
factorf
iberty
s
to
govern
andbe governednturn; or hepopular rinciplef ustices to
have
qualityccording
o
number,
ot
worth,
nd f
his
s
the
rin-
ciple
f
ustice
revailing,
hemultitude
ust
f
necessity
e sover-
eign
nd thedecision
f the
majority
ust
e final
nd must
on-
stitute
ustice,
or
hey ay
hat
achof
the
itizens
ught
ohave
n
equal
share;
o
that
t
resultshat
n
democracieshe
poor
re more
powerful
han he
rich,
ecause
here re
more f them
nd what-
ever
s
decided
y
the
majority
s
sovereign.
his
then s one mark
of
iberty
hich
ll democrats
etdown
s a
principle
f
the
onsti-
tution. ndone s for man o ive s he ikes; or hey ay hathis
is
the
unction
f
iberty,
nasmuch
s to ivenot s one
ikes
s
the
life f
a
man hat s
a
slave.This s the econd
rinciple
f democ-
racy,
nd
fromt
has
come
he
laimnot
o
be
governed,
referably
not
by
anybody,
r
failing
hat,
o
govern
ndbe
governed
n
turn;
and
this s
the
way
n
which he second
principle
ontributes
o
egalitarian
iberty.4
1317a40-1317b17)
The first
rinciple
f
democracy
s
equalpolitical
articipation,
y
which
ismeant ot oneman, ne vote s anequal say n whoultimatelyan
make
hoices,
ut
n
equal
say
n
what
s
chosen nd
for
what
nd.
Ac-
cording
o Aristotle's
ccount,
he
partisan
f
democracy
emands
olit-
ical
equality
ecause e
believes
hat he xercise
ffreedom
s
a
worthy
choice
or
man.
The
defensefthedemocratic
rinciple
f
equal
partici-
pation
s notmade
n
terms f
governmentalfficiency
r
stability
r
the
psychic
atisfaction
t
provides,
ut
ests
n the elief hat
eing
whole
human
eing
means
eing political articipant
f
this
ort.
emocracy
is
demanded
ot or
he ake
of
a
right
o do
my
wn
hing,
utbecause
ofanobligationo ive s a man ught.f thedemocraticartisan'son-
clusion--equal olitical articipation-follows
rom he
premise
hat
4.
Aristotelis,
olitica,
d.
W.
D.
Ross
(Oxford:
Oxford
University
ress,
957).
I
have used
the translation f
H.
Rackham
Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard Uni-
versity
ress,
1932),
except
hat have
made corrections
here
necessary.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
7/22
156 Aristotlen
Participatory
emocracy
being
man
means
ngaging
n
the
ctivity
f
freedom,
hen
he
ase for
participatoryemocracyeems orest ncompellingrounds.
The
partisan
f
democracylleges
hat
reedom
s
found
nly
n
a
democratic
egime
nd
that
emocracy
ust
herefore
e the est
egime,
since
iving
reely
s how manwishes
o
ive.
He
further
lleges
hat
ll
men
participate
n
freedom
1280a5).
But
we are
ed
to
suspect
ither
that e does
not
know
what tmeans o be
free
r that e doesnot
rgue
in
good
faith.When
Aristotleirst
resents
he
democratic
logan,
e
presents
t
as
just
hat:
slogan.
Aristotle as
neither
he
first orthe
last
political
cientist
o notice
hat
he wo
most
bvious
ivals or
oliti-
cal authorityretherich ndthepoor ndthat hey se theiruthority
to
keep
or
make
themselves
ich.
The
political
logan
f the
rich,
y
which
hey
ropose
o
secure heir
wn
xclusive
uthority,
s that
hose
who ontributeo the
ity ught
o be
given proportionateay
n
deter-
mining
ow resources
re to
be
used
1280a22-23).
They mply
hat
citizen
articipation
equires
ome
ability
r virtue nd
that
what
s
meant
y
virtues what
ontributeso the
common
enefit.
heymay
well
rr
n
taking
ealth o be both
sign
f
virtue nd
the
good
most
needfulo the
ommunity
1280a25-36
with
281a4-40);
but
he
ich
mayhaveother sefulualitiesnadditiono their ealth:heresponsi-
ble
habits
f
businessmen,
he
dmirable
anners
ound
mong
men f
old
wealth,
better
ducation
1283a29-37).
Democrats,
ho renote-
worthy
either or
heir
irtue
orfor heir
ontributions
o
the
com-
munity,
onetheless
ssert
hat
hey
re free.
ompared
o
the
rich
man's
ssertion,
heirs
trikes s as
a
barely
ivil
way
of
demanding
n
opportunity
o
put
heir ands
n the
public
ill
1281a11-16).
The
democrat's
emand,
hich
ppears
o
neglect
ny
consideration
of the
itizen's
merits,
as an
additional
ndesirable,
ot o
sayunjust,
consequence.fequality ere iven oeachman, oorfreemenwould
virtuallylways
onstitute
majority
n
opposition
o
a
minority
frich
free
men.
he
majority's
verriding
nterest
n
ameliorating
heir
overty
would verride
he nterests
f
wealthy
en.
On
the
basis
of the
ligar-
chic
principle
f
equality ccording
o
worth,
ot
number,
t
would
e
difficulto
argue
n behalf
f
democracy
hat
overty
s a
sign
fhuman
excellence,
ecause f
which
he
demotichould e
accorded
hat
s,
n
effect,
greater
han
qual
ay.
But ven fwe
began
with he
emocratic
principle
hat
ll
free-born
itizensre
equally
ntitled
o
participate
or
the akeof ivings eachwouldwish, modificationrmoderationf
majority
ule
would
be
required.
he
democrat
hotakes
reedomor
each man
eriously
oes not ntend
tyranny
fthe
majority.
herefore
he
intends,
f
necessary, regime
which
ccords
seemingly
reater
han
equal say
to
minoritiesn orderto
permit
ach
exponent
f a
minority
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
8/22
Delba
Winthrop
157
interest
o
live as
freely
s
theman who
espouses
he
nterest
f the
largestlass.
How
the
quality
feach
s
to be secured
s a
practical roblem
ith
whichwe are not
concernedor
hemoment. he theoretical
ifficulty
that
nterestss
is
why
he
democratic
artisan
elieves hat
t s
sound
reasoning
o
make
numerical
quality,
ot
merit
r contribution
o
the
common
ood,
he
measure
or
istributive
ustice.
Let
us
briefly
ecall
how
modern
olitical
cience emonstrateshat
all men
re
equal,
or
oday
ur
defense
f
democracy
tems
hiefly
rom
the
eaching
fThomas
Hobbes,
he
elf-proclaimed
ounder
f
modern
politicalcience,ndhisfollowers.nyustregimelaims o securehe
common
enefit,
nd
according
o
Hobbes,
we can
ascertain
hebenefit
thats
common,
y
which
e
means
niversal,
hen
we
examinehe
arts
of the
whole s
they
re n themselves. e know
what
political
hole
is and
what
ts nd
ought
o be
when
we know
what
he
parts
aturally
are and
why
hey
move
ogether
o
form
whole.
his
we
earn
y mag-
ining
men
n
the tate f
nature,
hat
s,
n
their
aturalondition.
obbes
says
that
ach
man s
naturally
body
n
motion,
lthough
he
human
body
n
particular
s
moved
y
ts
passions.
t
s moved
speciallyy
the
fear fviolenteath tthehands fanother an,whomay imilarlye
in
motion
nd even n
a
collision
ourse.
ach
man an reason hat
e
best
preserves
is
nature
when e
ives
within
commonwealth
aking
it
possible
orhim o maintainisfreedom
f
movement
nder sover-
eign
t
whosehandshe and his fellow ravelersan
fear
violent
eath
should
hey
make
wrong
move.The endof
commonwealth,
reserva-
tion f the
whole,
eflects
f
not he
deepest
esire,
hen
he
undamental
aversion
feachof
the
parts,
hich
s to
cease
motion. he
whole,
en-
erated
y
the
parts
manifesting
heir
atures,
s
like,
r
represents,
ach
of theparts nd s the auseof a universalenefit.cceptingobbes's
definitions
fman nd
commonwealth,
o citizen
oulddoubt he
ustice
of he
eviathan.5
Hobbes
finds
imilarity
n
the
parts,6
nd
we
today
end o use his
teaching
bout
quality
n
the
tate fnature
s a
justification
or
olitical
equality.
obbes,
f
course,
was not
a
partisan
f
democracy,
ut
of
monarchy.
e insists
n
the
qual
natural
ight
f each to contractr
consent
o
be
governed
ecause
n the
tate
f nature ach
has
an
equal
ability
o kill
nother,
r
to
resist
overnment.
n
commonwealth
ach
5.
Thomas
Hobbes,
Leviathan
Harmondsworth,
ngland:Penguin
ooks,
1968),
Chap.
13,
pp.
62-63;
Chap.
11,
p.
47;
Chap.
17,
pp.
87-88;
Chap.
15,
pp.
79-80.
References
re
to Hobbes's
original
agination.
6.
Ibid.,
Introduction,
.
2.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
9/22
158 Aristotlen
Participatoryemocracy
does
notretain he
right
o
deliberatend
udge,
hat
s,
to
rulerather
than oconsentoberuled, ecause, emighturmise,obbes an ssert
equality
f
prudence nly
s
a
thinly isguisedoke.'
While
he
shows
that defense f
political quality roperly
egins
with n
argument
about
qual
strength
nd
equal
prudence,
e himself
ses
his
teachings
about he tate
f nature
s a
justification
otfor
emocracy,
utfor
government
hat
s
as
indifferents
possible
o
thevarious nds
pursued
by
itizens. is
purpose
n
nventing
nd
mphasizing
he tate f
nature,
characterized
y
a universalear
f
violent
eath,
s
to
avoid
having
o
considerhe
parts
s
different,
s
they
would e
if
they
were onsidered
with eferenceo thedifferentndstheymightesirewhennotpreoc-
cupied
with
mere
reservation.
It
has
been
observed
hat
n
constituting
heir
olitical
rders,
men
tend o
ookfor
natural
model
o mitate.
uch model
an command
their
espect
ecause
hey
end o
suppose
hatwhat
xists
ndependent
of human reation
must
ave
originated
n
tremendous
ower
nd,
hey
hope,
benevolence.uch
uppositions
re
the
hemes
f
religion
nd
re-
ligious
ontroversy.
obbes
elievedhat
when
olitical
rder
s
ntended
as an imitation
f a whole
ompleted
y
a summum
onum,
t is
the
source f ontinuousisagreementeadingodisorder,ndfails osecure
theone minimal
ood
on which
veryone
s
agreed:peace
or
preserva-
tion.
Men
inevitably
ontend
bout
the
meaning
f
the
highest ood,
either ecause
here
s
no one correct
efinition
r because
men
annot
be
expected
o
concede
tscorrectness.9obbes
ntendedo
discourage
questions
bout
he
bases
n
whichmen
laim
o merit share n
govern-
ment nd
the
nds
orwhich
heymight
overn,
ecause
nswerso such
questions
epend
n the
prior
esolution
f
disputes
boutthe
good.
Even
thosewho
reject
obbesfor
Rousseau,
ontending
hat
articipa-
tion srequiredecause llmen refree ndbecause reedomsthe nd,
deny
hat
overnment
s
properly
oncerned
ith
efining
he ontent
f
freedom.10
owever
we
mightudge
Hobbes's
ntention,
hetruncated
modeof
political
iscourse
dvocated
y
himhas
prevented
ontempo-
rary
olitical
cience
rom
efending
ith
larity
he
goodness
f
equal
political
articipation.
An
alternative
rocedure,cknowledged
ut
not
followed
y
Hobbes,
would
e to
begin y akingeriously
he
laimsmade
y
men
bout heir
7.
Ibid.,
Chap.
13,
pp.
60-61.
8.
Ibid.,
Chap.
21,
p.
109;
Chap.
21,
p.
113;
Chap.
30,
pp.
181-182.
9.
Ibid.,
Chap.
11,
p.
47;
Chap.
5,
pp.
18-19.
10.
Jean-Jacques
ousseau,
The
Social
Contract,
k.
I,
Chap.
6.
The end of the
association reated
y
the
ompact
s defense
nd
preservation
f
original
reedom.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
10/22
Delba
Winthrop
159
individual erits
nd about
he
ommon
enefit
hey
ntendo
secure
y
means ftheir ule.To understandhis lternativend ts mplications
we
must eturn
o
Aristotle.
II
In
the
central
ortion
f
Book
iii
of
The
Politics,
ristotle akes
his
most
xplicit
rodemocratic
tatement:
It
s
probably
rue
hat
he
mul-
titude,
atherhan
he ew
est,
ught
o
be
sovereign
1281a40-42).
He
offerseveral
rguments
n
support,
ut
the
only
unobjectionable
ne
givens that hemany,aken ltogether,rebettern the ameway hat
a
common
meal s betterhan meal
provided
y
one
expenditure.
ow
it
s better
s
clarifiedater: A collective
anquet
s more
eautiful
han
a
single,imple
ne. For the
ame
reason,
e are told
ronically,
mob
judges
etter
han
ny
ne
of
them,
rbitrarily
hosen,
might.
imilarly,
many
re more
ncorruptible,
r
indestructible,
han
few,
s
is
more
rather han ess
water
1286a29-33).
Hence
we
might
nfer hat
he
many
re
as
good
or
better
ecause
hey
an
provide
reater
uantity
r
bulk t a
pot-luckupper.
n
fact,
heir
resence
s soon
ompared
o the
additionf mpureood opure 1281b36-38).No satisfactoryroofs
given
hat
hey
ave
either
ood
taste
r
sound
udgment
bout
nutri-
tion.11
t
is, however,
urburden
o
prove
hat
bjections
o base tastes
andto
wrongudgments
re
reasonable,
r that
we
can
properlypeak
f
good
aste nd
rightudgment
t
all
(1282b8-13).
More
to the
present oint,
he
rgument
or
niversal
nd
equal par-
11.
The
arguments
made to establish
he
sufficiency
f the
taste
nd
judgment
of
the
many,
s
distinguished
rom he
few
good,
are
obviously
nadequate.
he
many re said to be able to judgethe wholewell,forwecan suppose hat mong
them re individuals ach of
whom
knows
part
well.
Not
only
can we
ask
why
the totalresult
will
be the um
of
noble and correct ather
han
base
and
ignorant
judgments,
ut
we can ask
whether whole s
not
more
han he
um
of
its
parts,
as
are
the
poems
and
musicalworks
given
s
examples
here.Aristotle's
eference
to
the
many's
oming
ogether
ike
a man with
many
hands
nd feet
uggests
hat
he thinks he result
will
be monstrous.
e then
ndicates
hat
he
many
mustbe
given
say
not because
they
will
say
well,
but
because
they
will
oppose
a
regime
which
does not
give
them
hearing.
he
argument
hat
ne need
not be
a
doctor
to
judge
the
workof other
doctors,
y
which
some
might ttempt
o
solve
the
difficulty,
oes not solve
it.
Aristotle
egins
with
the
problem
f
ensuring
hat
rulerswillchoosewell;he endswith questionablergumenthatusers an udge
the workof
makers.
his
argument
stablishes
t most
hat he
many
re
capable
of
calling
their ulers
o
account,
not that
hey
hemselves
re
capable
of
ruling.
Even
their
bility
o
assess elected
fficials
s
questioned
n the
final
assage
of this
section.
he
goodness
f
democracy
s not established
nsofar s
the
nobility
nd
wisdom
f
democratic
udgments
re
ultimately
otdefended.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
11/22
160
Aristotle
n
Participatoryemocracy
ticipation
ests n
an
assertion
bout he
equality
f
the
human
ody.
The democrat ants oargue or he overeigntyf all inthe egislative
assembly
nd
to
say
that uch
quality
s
just
according
o the
kind
f
measure
hat
ermits
s tomake total ut f ach fthe
ots
t
the
up-
per.
n
referring
o wholes
ther
han
political
wholes,
e
attempts
o
make
nature is
tandard-anature
ntelligible
s
a
totality
fbodies. f
course
he
democrat ustmean
totality
f self-moved
odies,
orhe
intended
o
make
n
argument
or
qual
freedom,
ot
unfreedom.
n
speaking
f the
overeignty
f the
demos
n the
egislature,
e reminds
us
that uman
odies
an
be
found
eated n
assemblies,
here
hey
re-
sume o egislateheir wn awsofbehavior,rmotion.
WhenAristotle
esponds
o
an
hypothetical
bjection
hat he
base,
who
onstitutenumerical
ajority,
ught
ot
o
be
sovereign
ver
more
important
atters
han
re
the
espectable
r
reasonable,12
e does
con-
tend hat
emocracy
s nonetheless
ight
nd
ust.
He
says,
owever,
hat
this
olitical
olution
s
right
n
that ach
s
a
part
f the
ssembly,
he
council,
nd
the
ourts.n
other
ords,
e deems
t
right,
hat
s,
correct
according
o
nature,
hat his
ity
s
a
whole
omprised
f
partial
holes,
defined
y
heir
haracteristic
olitical
orks.
t
s
ust, ccording
o
him,
because hedemosssovereignnthe ssembly,hilewithintandfrom
it
deliberators
nd
udges
re
distinguished
s
special
arts
f
the
whole.
Justice
resumably
equires-as
we concede
n
the
framing
f our
own
political
nstitutions-that
he
respectable
r
reasonable,
pecialists
n
deliberating
nd
udging,
e
grantedpecial
uthority.
he
whole
on-
tains
ll,
not
s a
totality
f
undistinguished
odies,
ut
s
a
collectionf
defined
multitudes.
ndeed,
he
human
multitude
ust
e
distinguished
from he
nonhuman,
ust
s within
t
those
who
personify
ts
distinguish-
ing
faculties
f
deliberation
nd
udgment
re
distinguished,
or
t
alone
is a multitudefthefree.A democracyffreemenneeds better e-
fense
han hedemocratic
artisan
as
given.
t
needs
demonstration
that he emos s
properlyovereign
n
the
ssembly
ndthat hehuman
multitude
oes ndeed
egislate
or
tself.
The
practical
olution eached
t
this
oint
n
Aristotle'sext
trikes
us as more
r
ess
dequate.
ustice
equires
democracy,erhaps
ot
s
democratic
artisans
ouldhave
t,
but
a
democracy
n
which
ll fac-
tions ave heir
air
ay.
Each
man,
ase or
respectable,
s
assured fair
say
by
dding
o
the
democratic
ssembly
igh
ffices
orwhich
nly
he
12.
The word
used
is
the
noun,
epieik~s
or
equitable
man,
which
temsfrom
epieikeia,
r
equity.
For
the relation f
equity
o
justice,
f.
Aristotelis,
thica
Nicomachea,
d.
L.
Bywater
Oxford:
Oxford
University
ress,
1894),
1137a31-
1138a3.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
12/22
Delba
Winthrop
161
rich
nd
respectable
re
eligible
nd
by
eaching
ow
he ouncil
nd the
courts an be used oguide ndcheck he ssembly.owthismodified,
moderated
emocracy
an be
ustified
s
the
heoretical
ifficulty
hat
e-
mains.Man has
a
unique
lace
and
a
democratic
aw
of
nature
oes
notdo
justice
o
human
ature.
ristotle's
oint,
we
suggest,
s
to
show
that n
argument
or
democratic
quality,
stablished
y
means
f an
abstraction
rom
he
qualities
hatmakehuman
eings olitical
eings,
wouldnot
be
an
argument
or
or
against)
political articipation.
e
leadsus to nfer
hat
hese
rguments
an be
made
nly
n thebasis
f
a
political
cience hat
learly
rticulatesnd
defends
he
istinctive
uality
of political eing.
To
speak
f man
s
political
means
o
define
im
not
by
whatmakes
him mere
art
f
henatural
hole,
ut
by
what
makes im distinctive
part.
his,
we
are
old,
s his
oming
ogether
n a
community
ffree
men
(1278bl17-25,
279a21).
The
democratic
artisan,
rguing
bout
ustice
as
ifmenwere
qual
because
oughly
qual
n
body
in
contrasto
oli-
garchs
who
at
leastwant
o
argue
boutmerits
nd contributionso
a
common
enefit),
annot
peak
of
ustice
or
ree
men.
Aristotle,
ow-
ever,
has referred
o
an
hypothesis,resumably
is
own,
ccording
o
whichman s a citizenn a specialway 1277b7-9,1278a2-5,1278b15-
30).
Man
must
makehimself man nd a citizen
o
become
part
f a
whole hat
ncompasses
he
fullest
uman
ossibilities.
an's
capacities
may
be
given y
nature,
ut
his
being
s
the
ctuality
f
which e is
a
cause,
nd
n this
ensehe
s
free.
n
reflection,
hen,
he
democrat
ho
attempts
o defend is
notion f
ustice
y mplying
hat
t
s
right
c-
cording
o nature
erhaps
eed
not
proceed
s
he
doesto
make com-
pelling
rgument,
r meet he
requirements
f
science.
or
scientists
seek o
know he
ause
or
causes f
being,
nd
one
might
est earn
ow
tospeak ntelligiblybout auses fbeing y tudyingreemen.nother
words,
science hat
nvestigates
ree
men nd thewholes fwhich
hey
make
hemselves
arts-political
cience-is
at least
utonomous
n re-
spect
o natural
cience
nd at
most
aradigmatic
or
t.
Hence
Aristotle
makes
he
ollowing
ssertion
ntroducing
is
discussionf how
politi-
cal
regime
ight
e
ustified:
Since n all
the
ciences nd arts
he
nd
s
good,
nd
the
greatest
and
most inal
s
(the
nd)
ofthe
most
overeign
f
ll,
the
olitical
capacitys this amething,ndthe ust s thepolitical ood, nd
this
s
the
enefit
bringing
ogether)
n
common.13
1282b14-18)
13. To
sympheron
eans
not
only
the
beneficial,
ut the
bringing
ogether,
from
ympher6,
to
bring ogether.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
13/22
162
Aristotlen
Participatory
emocracy
As
we
shall
ee,
he
ust
which
s
the
olitical
ood
nd
the
ne
common
thingntowhich ll arebroughtogethers thefirstrinciplefAris-
totle's
ypothesis
bout
man's
ossible
erfection.
The
democratic
rinciple
f freedom
s
not
wrong,
nd
the
ssertion
of
freedom
y
each and
every
mannot
nconsequential.
ut since
free-
dom s meant o
be a
term f
distinction
nd
especially
ince he
political
claim asedon freedom
s
a
response
o the
ligarchic
laim hatwealth
is
a
sign
f
excellence,
e
might
sk
what bvious
istinctionsre
com-
prehended
n the erm
reedomnd
o
what
ind
f xcellence
hey oint.
Most
menwho
peak
ffreedom ish
o
be
free rom
ecessities,
ut
re
not. urely poormanwhomust oil ncessantlyoensure isphysical
survival
r a
base man
who
annot esist
ratification
f
his
very
esire
is not free
man,
ut
slave
to his
body's
needs
nd desires.
eing
free,
we
might rant,
means
t least
having
he
wherewithal,
conomic
and
moral,
o
combat
odily
ecessities,
s
do the
wealthy
nd
virtuous.
Thusan
analysis
f
the
laim f freedomorces
s to
concede
herea-
sonablenessf
the
laims
f
the
nondemocratic
artisans.
urthermore,
this
s
to
acknowledge
hat
ertain
ualities,
uch
s wealth nd
virtue,
are
generally
steemed
r
honored nd that
men
end o
measure
heir
excellenceythem. erhapshis swhyAristotleas said that onors,
as
well
as
freedom,
re a first
rinciple
1281a31),
and
why
he
now
asserts hat
city
s
put ogether
f the
free nd those
whobear
esti-
mates
1283a17-18).
(He
puns
n
the onnectionetween
meeting
property
ualification
nd
being
steemed
r
honored.)
Wealthy
nd
re-
spectable
men
re,
n
effect,
mages
f
the
ualities
hich
ll menwho
value
freedom,
ncluding
emocrats,
ust
steem.14
modifiedemoc-
racy
s,
so to
speak,
mixed
egime,
ixing
uman odieswith he
principles
hat an
rule
heir odies.
erhaps
ne
could
hen
rgue
hat
these rinciplesughtobeembodiedr nstitutionalizedn certainon-
or
antidemocratic
ecognition
f men
who
xhibit
hem
n
a
democracy.
The
rightest
aws,
Aristotle
ays,
re
equally
ight,
hat
s,
of
benefit
to
the
whole
ity
ndto
what
s commono
citizens
1283b35-1284a3).
The
city
s a
whole
s the um
f
free
men,
qual
n their ssertionsf
freedom.
ut
n
order
o
find
hem o
equal
we
must
bstract rom
n
evaluation
f
he
ways
n
whichmen laim
obe
free nd
of he
ualities
ofthe
laimants.
ranted
hat here
would e no
dispute
bouthonors
f
men
did
not
presuppose
heir
reedom
o
make
heir
wn
whole;
n
this
sense reedomsa firstrinciplerbeginningarchi).But his eginning
14. n The Politics
reemen are most
frequently
iscussed
n
terms f
their
ir-
tues
or
even
compared
o
virtues:
1258bl8-1260b18,
1277b7-25, 1283a33-37,
1286a36-bl.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
14/22
Delba
Winthrop
163
is
ncomplete
ecause
when
he emocrat
ssertshat e
s
free,
e means
tosaythat ehassome xcellencervirtue.urthermore,endeem
particular
uality
virtuensofars
it
contributes
o the
ttainment
f
some ndheld o be
good.
Just s men's
ultivationf
virtue
resupposes
freedom,
o it
mplies
ome nd
ntended.
utmen end
o
acknowledge
as
theirntention
nly
what
hey
eem onorable.
his
point merges
rom
Aristotle's
bservation
hat
ome
men
re
authoritative
ecause
hey
re
strong,
oupled
with
isfailureo
ist
ny
men
who
laim
trength
s the
goal
or
title
f
rule.
Men
inevitably
se
their
trength
o make
ome
respectable
ndor first
rinciple
uthoritative,
o that
hey
an
ive
for
themselvesndwith thersn thebasisofwhat s commonlyonored.
To do
this s
to make
regime.
city
s
ncomplete
ithout
regime,
nd
every
ctual
ity
as
one
1283a42-1283b9).
Men's
ssumptions
bout
what
ives
ll
things
nd human
ualities
worth
re thus he
auses
of
regimes.
iven
his,
o
speak
f
what s commono citizens
equires
statement
bout
the
particular
orm
hese
ssumptions
ake
n
each
regime.
o
speak
f
politics
n
this
way,
ringing
o
ight
he
variety
f
regimes,
eems
o
essreasonablehan o consider
ll
citizens
s similar.
In
this
way
we
consciously
dopt
he
perspective
f
political
men,
who
tend oseeallthingsnthe ightf heir undamentalolitical
pinions.15
We differrom
olitical artisans
n
acknowledging
hat ach
particular
perspective ay
e imitednd
n
continuing
o
ask
by
what
measure,
y
what
omprehensive
irst
rinciple,
hedifferent
pinions
bout
worth
can be
compared
o one another.
Aristotle'sssertiont
this
oint
s that
ustice,
r
virtuen
associ-
ating,
makes
he
human irtues
whole
1283a37-40).
He
proposes
that
n
order
o
understand
ow
the
various uman
ualities
eemed
good
are ranked nd
ordered,
e must onsider
ow
thevirtues
ould
be unifiedntheustice fthebestman.Thisbestman omes osightt
the
nd
of
an
analysis
f
the
ualities
y
means
f
which
uman
eings
distinguish
hemselvesrom ne
another
nd from
he
est
f
nature,
r
are
free
s
human
eings.
he
bestman
xemplifies
he
overeignty
f
he
humanmultitudever
odily
ature,
ndthereforeconsideration
fhis
example
nables
s
to
come o
speak
f a
justice
efitting
ll
free
men.
To
repeat,
e contendhat case for
qual
political articipation
annot
be
madeuntilwe have
rticulated
he
tandard
y
which o
measure he
various laims f
hosewho
demand
o
be
treateds free.t
s,
however,
15.
Judgments
n
accordance
with
one's
self-interest
oth
result rom
nd
sup-
port
otal
views,
r
wholes
1280a14-25).
Similarly,
hefirst
ttempt
t
defining
a
citizen
imply
was
exposed
s
one
that
ucceeded
n
definingnly
democratic
citizen.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
15/22
164
Aristotle
n
Participatoryemocracy
no
onger
trictly
orrecto
speak
n
terms ffreedomather
han
irtue,
since he tandard hichmen espectndbywhichheymeasure hem-
selves
s
understood
y
hem
o
be
worthy
f
respect
recisely
ecause t
is
not
merely
fhuman
making.
he
self-made
irtues
re
deemed irtues
in
the
ight
f
a
principle
enhave
not
made.
ThusAristotle
rgues
hatmen's
laims o honors
onstitute
he
ub-
stance f
political isputes,
nd he
asserts is ntentiono resolve uch
disputes,
t least
n
principle,
y
teaching
bout he
ustice
f thebest
man,
or
man
par
excellence.
here
follow brief
bservation
n
the
threat
osed
o
regimes
yvery
xcellent
en nd
lengthy
xamination
ofkingship,hich eem oreflecthefollowingrainfthought.laims
to honors
mply pinions
bout auses n
the
ight
f which
ertain
u-
man
qualities
re
properly
eemed
irtues,
s
wellas
about
ausesof
virtue.
or
example,
o
say
that
ourage
s
virtue
nd a
characteristicf
a
free ndhonorable an
s to
mply
hat
man's ituations such hat e
ought
o combat
r
resist
ertain
orces,
uman r
natural.
o
say
that
courage
s
a
virtue
s
also
to
tempt
s
to ask what
makes
uman
eings
capable
f
t;
that
s,
what
atural
onditions
nd
what
uman
apacities
and
opinions
nablemen o
perform
he
ctswe
recognize
s
courageous.
For the akeofattaininglarity emightaise hese uestions,hichn
everyday
olitical
iscourse o
longer
ppearproblematical.
hus
we
must
eturn
o
a
consideration
f
nature,
s well s
freedom,
ut
we now
conceive
f
nature s thatwhich
makes
man's
reedom
r
virtue
eces-
sary
nd
possible,
ot
omething
ndifferent
o
t.
We
might
ish o
speak
of
the
first
rinciples
f such nature
s monarchs
mon-archai,
ni-
tary
irst
rinciples).
t
can then e said
that he
movementf Book
n
of the
Politicss
from
n
assertionbout
quality
nd
freedom,
r self-
rule,
or ll to an
examination
f
what
must e
supposed
o
be the ctual
rule fone.What auses hismovementsourreflectionnthemeaning
of
he
laim obe a free
man.
When
we
think
f the
causes
enabling
men o
do
as
they
hoose
n
politics,
e are
likely
o
think
irst
f
strength,
ealth,
nd
influential
friends
1284a20-22).
This,however,
s
insufficient,
or
men's
ctions
are
also affected
y
heir
esires
nd
by
peech
r
reason,
r
by
he
om-
binationf
these wo
n
their
pinions
boutwhat
s
good.Opinions,
s
much
s
physical
trength,
rea
causeofthe ctions f
freemen.
Hence,
also,
peech
ddressed
o
others as
strength
n
politics
s
rhetoric.
lti-
mately,trong ordsmust e basedon a knowledgef human eings,
their
assions
nd
theirmodes
f
reasoning,
nd
also of
what s
possible,
since he
purpose
f such
peech
s
to movemen.
We
might
ote
hat
when Aristotle irst
peaks
of
political
ule,
he
distinguishes
ree
or
po-
litical
men
by
their irtues. he
examples
given
re thefree
man who has
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
16/22
Delba
Winthrop
165
the
ourage
f a man
nd
the
ne
whohas
the
moderation,
r
discretion
inspeech,fa woman1277b17-23).Nowheaskswhats tobedone
with
ery ood
men,
ndhe
shows
ow
democracies
nd
tyrannies
end
to exclude
manifestlyuperior
enfrom
heir ities.
n
considering
he
causes
of such
behavior
1284al8,
1284a23-24,1284a25,
1284a31),
Aristotle
peaks
f
a
tyrant,
eriander
the
name
means
All-Around
Man ),
who
rules
city y
force
nd was once understood
synnoed)
by
nother
yrant
ithout
aving
ttered
word.
ristotle aintainshat
it is
not
imply ight
o
censure uch
yrants,
ecause hecauses
by
which
men
move,
he
principles
f
political
eeds,
re
strength
f
body
and the trengthhichwisdomffordso opinion.Strengthfbody
might
ellbe
used
n the
rejection
f
excellence,
ut
t
s,
of
course,
o
less
necessary
n
the
defense
f
excellence.)
he
tyrants,
r
monarchs,
mentionedere
mbody
he
rinciples
r
causes
fthe
irtue
manifest
n
politics,
ndtheir
resence
s
mplied,
ut
not
lways
bvious,
n
political
virtue.
hus
aking
he laim
f
freedom
ery eriously
eadsus
to
Aris-
totle's
oke
about
hermaphroditic
yrants,
ike
the
All-Around an
Periander.
hey
personify
olitical
irtue s
tyrants,
r freemen
par
excellence.
onetheless,
f
censure
f
such
yrants
s
not
imply ight
for hementionedeason,t srightn the ense hat he yrantsombine
the
extremes
f
bodily
nd
intellectual
trength
ithout
he
saving
phenomenon
f
the
mean
f
politics
nd
political
iscourse,
hich
s
most
haracteristicf
man,
he
olitical
nimal.
Taking
uman
yrantseriously ight
ead
us to ask whether holes
other han ities
re
ruled
n
the
ame
way.
n
other
ords,
ust
s
Peri-
ander ere
dvised
hrasyboulos
o
rule ver
city
f menmade
visibly
equal
ike levelfield f
corn,
re
there
auses
n
nature hose
ower
wedo not
ee,
but
which
onetheless
ule
ver he
isible
hole
s do
the
tyrants?nthis amepassage,Aristotlepeaks f men oogoodto be a
part
f
any
ity,
menwho
re
a
law
1284a13-14)
and
mages
fa
god
among
men
1284a10-11).
In
considering
hat
hey
re,
we can
mag-
inewhat
god
or
a first
ause
reminiscentf
Plato'sGoodwould
e
ike.
We are
told
y
Aristotle
1284b30-34)
that
hese
mages
f
god
ought
to be
made
kings;
ings,
ot
yrants.
he
tyrants,
n
ruling
hole
ities
of
men
mpress
s
with heir
mazing,uprahuman,
kills.
hey
ulenot
only
with
orce,
ut
by making
ature
ntelligible
o
themselvess
the
rule
f
force.
n
so
doing, hey
make
way
with
r
abstractrom
aphai-
reo) thebestmen or he akeofuniformity;enceAristotle'sompari-
son of
tyrannical
ule
o
democraticstracism.ut
kings
nd
mages
f
gods
emerge
rom
mong
he best
n
thebest
regime 1284b25-34),
and such monarchs an be
in
harmony
with ities.
A
king
s not
only
a
cause,
but
he is
presumably
cause
in
the
same
way
that hebest
part
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
17/22
166
Aristotle
n
Participatoryemocracy
of human
ature
s
a causeof
political
eeds,
ndhis
rule
s
compatible
with oliticalreedom. hat emainsobe seen s how uch monarch
is
in
harmony
ith
community
f
free
men nd
why
is
rule s neces-
sary.
A
king
ooks fter
he
ommon
ood
nd
s
thereby
istinguished
rom
a
tyrant,
ho rules
for
his
own benefit
1279a33-34,
1279b6-7).
A
king,
hen,
s
the
pitome
f
a freemanwho
participates
n
politics
or
the
ommon
ood.
In
this
espect
e fulfills
he laims
f
bothdemo-
crats
nd
oligarchs.)
t s
abouthim
hat
olitical
cientistsho
wish o
justifyarticipation
eed o
know.
Aristotleellsus that here reseveral inds fkings.As political
scientists,
trictlypeaking,
t
might
eem
hat
we need
not
oncern
ur-
selveswith he
king
who
s
said
to
have
greater
trength
han each
and
one
and
all
together,
ut s
not
held o be
superior
o the
multitude
of
free
men) (1286b35-37).
Briefly,
his
king
s similar
o the
best
man,
but
n
showing
hy
he
ule
f
a human
ing
wouldnot
be
preferable
o
theruleof a
multitude
f
free
men,
Aristotlenables
s
to
see
what
divine
eing,
who
surpasses
he besthuman
eing,
wouldhave to
be
like.16
is
being
s
like
human
oul,
but
better. he
besthuman
oul,
like heEgyptianoctors erewhomove hings,s characterizedyan
eros owardome
nd.
The
besthuman oul lso
egislates
nd
ays
down
or underliesaws. He
combines
ros nd
thymos's
n
the evelof
hu-
manity,
nd n
intending
o make
his
nobility
anifest,
e
generalizes
from is
own noble soul to
set
a
standard
or
otherhuman
beings.
Equally
with ther
ree
men
who
give
aws o
themselves
r are
aws
for
themselves,
e s
one
n
a multitude
hat s
manifoldn
body
nd
unitary
in
soul,
and for
whom
uling
nd
being
uled
hus
re
virtually
nter-
changeable.
is noble
assions
s
well
s his
reason
re
the
ause
ofhis
virtue. etbecausehe hasthepassionsmadepossible yman'sbodily
nature,
e
cannot e
expected
o
be
either
elfless
r
mmortal;
o
perhaps
he should ule
only
n
a
multitude.
hen,
were
we
still o
insist
hat
king's
ule s
beneficial,
e would
have
to
imagine king ompletely
devoid
f
elfish
assions
ecause
evoid
f
body,
ut
herefore
lso de-
void of
will.He would
be
perfect
eason.
To
the
extent
hat
he had
bodily trength
ver ach
and
one
and
all in
order o
guard
is
rule,
that
trength
ould
e
nothing
ore han
ach and one and all's
being
what
hey
re
n
a
nature
uled
y
he
egularity
e
call
a
law
ofnature.
To setdown uch king, ristotleays,sthework f goodman.
16.
Nic.
Ethics,
178b7-32.
17.
bid.,
1113a31-33.
18.
Politics,
286a17-20,
1287a28-32.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
18/22
Delba
Winthrop
167
The
reign
f
his
ing
was
prior,
nd
he
was
replaced
y
men f
virtue,
whohappenedobecome umerous.e is not he ause of humanx-
cellence,
ut
s
prior19
nthe
ense
hat heres no defense
f
he
trivings
by
whichman
ttempts
o
overcome isbaseness
fhe
does
not
uppose
that
erfection
s
in
principleossible.
uch
king
s
believed
o exist
and
to be
beneficialr
to
bring hingsogether
y
thosewho
eek
aws
that
give
ommandsbout
what efalls
ne
and
compare olitics
o
an
art
1286a9-12).
To
live
by
the aw of
menwho
deliberate
obly
s
to
suppose
hat irtues
possible
nd
good,
r
prudent.
hen
we
connect
freedom
ith
hoice,
we
necessarily
onnect
t
with
ood
hoice ecause
we also connectreedom ith nimpededction. nactionwhichs not
impeded
might
e
said to be
according
o
nature.
o even
he
freest
c-
tion
must e
chosenwith
ome
knowledge
f
what
ature
ermits.aking
seriously
an's
esire o
be
free hus eadsus to
postulate
hat ature
s
ruled
either
y
mere orce
or
by
a moral
eing
who
gives
ommands,
but
by
rational
eing:
perfect
rtisan,
soul
superior
o human
oul
in
acking
ll
passions,
perfect
udge,
ncorruptible
r
eternal.
e is
the
god
ofwhich
he
philosopher
s
an
image.
e
is
not
he
ame
s
the ree
manmoved
y
thedesire
o
do
well,
lthough
uch
desire
eads
us
to
formulaterule ompatible ith reedom1287a28-30). Politicalmen
participatey making
heir
wn
order
within
n
orderly
ature,
hich
they
an
suppose
o
be ordered
n
such
way
s to
permit
hem
o
act
well.
Political
hilosophersarticipate
ymaking
his
ecessaryremise
offreedomrvirtue
xplicit.
We seemto have
overstepped
he
bounds
f
academic
ropriety
n
suggesting
hat
political
cientists
articipate
y becoming
eachers
f
natural cience
nd
theology,
ut
Aristotle's
oint
s
that
his
eeming
impropriety
s,
n
fact,
oth
roper
nd
necessary.
his s not
o
say
hat
weoughtoneglect oliticsnthenarrowerense suallyssignedoit.
Hence
we
should
eturn,
y
means
fa
brief
onsiderationfAristotle's
solution,
o the
more
pecificuestion
f
what
olitical
cientistsan
do
about
articipatory
emocracy.
III
With
Aristotle,
e have
attempted
o
ascertain
hether
nd how
par-
ticipatoryemocracy ighte ustified. ehave ontendedhatnorder
19.
At
1275bl-3,
Aristotle
romises
clarificationf
the
manner
n
which
ight
regimes
re
prior.
n
the
Metaphysics,
e are
reminded
hat
emporal
riority
s
only
one kindof
priority.
ristotle,
etaphysics,
rans.
Hugh
Tredennick
Cam-
bridge,
Mass: Harvard
University
ress,
935),
1018b9-29.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
19/22
168
Aristotle
n
Participatory
emocracy
to
ascertain
he
ustness
f
democracy
r
any
other
egime,
e need o
measurepecificallyoliticalqualitynd nequality.
Aristotle
resents
s
with
democratic
itizen,
ho
nitially
rgues
that
udging
nd
ruling
re somehow onnected ith
manifesting
he
complete
uman
eing
nd
also that
very
itizen,
ut
only
citizen,
s
capable
of
udging
nd
ruling.
e identifiesuman
nd
political
eing.
Yet this
pokesman
ries o
establish
he
ustice
f
democracy
n
particu-
lar
by
nvoking
rguments
o
prove
hat
emocracy
s
by
nature
ight
because
human
ity
s
properly
odeled n
a
nature
omposed
f
bodies,
ach
of
which
s
a
one
and an
equal.
n
so
arguing,
e
forgets
abouthishumanityltogether.anresemblesodily aturewhen ne
abstracts romwhat
distinguishes
imfrom ther
eings,
hat
s,
his
freedom,
r his
capacity
o
be
the
ause
of
his
own
being
nsofar
s
he
can determineis nd nd
ct n
accordance
ith is
determination.
his
is
not
o
suggest
hat
he
body
an be
forgotten,
ut
hat
mphasizing
t
distractshe
democrat
rom
making
herelevant
rgument.
ow
can
it
be
said
that
itizenship
ontributeso the
bility
o
do
well
nd that he
citizen
ecessarily
as
this
bility,
stablishing
hat
itizensre
equal
as
freemen?
his
rgument
s
attempted
y
Aristotlen
behalf f
he
emo-
cratnthe ontextfhis tatementnkingship.
Aristotle
ritesn
a
democracy,
ut
holds
hat
emocracy
s not
n-
evitable.
e,
too,
s
conscious
f
he
problem
fwould-bentidemocratic
democratic
lites. heir
resence
s
indicated
arly
n
Book
III
in the
correctionf
the
first efinitionf a
citizen,
or
hey
rovoke
he tate-
ment
hat
citizens one who
has
the
power
o
judge
nd deliberate
with
kill.
ower
nd
skill
o
not
lways,
ut
might
oincide. ristotle
demonstrates
he
good
citizenship
f
the
political
hilosopher.
hile
e
attempts
o make
he
powerful
ore
apable
nd
defendsheir
ower
only nsofars itis defensible,e reconcileshemore killed o their
relative
owerlessness.211
his
he
does
by
arguing
n a
certain
ay
that
democracy
s
ust.
His
way
makes
emocracy
ore
ust
nd
at the
ame
time
rovides
n
explanation
f
alternatives
uperior
o
democratic
iti-
zenship.
t
shows
when
nd
why
democratic
articipation
houldbe
chosen.
Whatwe are
shown
s
that
ccording
o
which
he
king
whodoes
everythingccording
o his
own ntention
ules
1287a8-10).
That
according
o which
king
ules
s an
each
an
individual)
ho
rules
by udging,ndtheking's wnrule s constitutedy udging.Weoffer
the
ollowing
xplanation
f
he
meaning
fAristotle's
bsolute
ingship.
20.
ContrastAristotle's efense
f
democracy
with
his
immoderate
ttackon
immoderate
emocracy
n
Book
v,
at
1292a4-38.
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:35:14 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Aristotle on Participatory Democracy-Winthrop, Delba-Polity Volume 11 Issue 2 1978
20/22
Delba
Winthrop
169
The democrat's
ecessary
rgument,
hat
itizenship
ontributes
o
a
man's bilityo do well ndthat citizen asthis bility,s bestmade
with
eference
o
themanner
nwhich
judge
r
uror
makes
udgments
(1287a25-27, 1287a41-b3,
287b15-17,
287b23-24,
287b25-29).
When ne
udges
n a
court
f
aw,
he
supposes
hathe
udges
n ac-
cordance ith
aw and
accepts
he
uthority
f the
aw
and
of the
gov-
ernment
hat
asmade t. n
thewords
f
ne uch
udge:
Judicial
ower resupposes
n established
overnment
apable
of
enacting
aws
and
enforcing
heir
xecution,
nd
of
appointing
judges
to
expound
nd administer
hem. he
acceptance
f
the
judicial
ffices a
recognition
f the
uthority
fthe
government
from hich
t
s
derived.21
The
judge
or
juror
does not
suppose
hat
he
makes
aws.
Rather,
n
judging
e s confrontedith contradiction
ither
etweenhe
aw
and
someone
who
has
broken
t,
as
did
Socrates,
or
xample,
r
between
citizens
hohave
ome
laims
gainst
achother.
et in theface
f
an
objection
othe
aw,
ne s
forced
o
reaffirmr
reject
t,
nd
n
applying
it
to a
case
presently
ot overed
y
t,
o
expand
he
aw.
n
fact,
hen,
hedoes egislate hen e udges.He does o in a way hat emindss of
the
procedure
f a scientist ho
examines
is
own
working
ypothesis,
deliberately
evising
is
aws
as he
tests
hem
n
the
face of manifest
exceptions
nd
omissions.
In a
democracy,
emocratsake
pparent
imilaritiesnd
equalities
too
seriously.
his
defective
erception
oincidentally
erves
he nterest
of
ach
democrat,
ho
s
thereby
nabled o
perceive
emocratic
quality
as
right.
n
legislating,
emocrats
ake
general
ules
or
he
many
ike
themselves.
n
udging,
owever,
democrat
ight
etter
isregard
im-
self ndthemanyikehimself,ither ecause he ud